MH370 speculation has become excessive recently. Metabunk is not a forum for creating theories by speculation. It's a forum for examining claims, and seeing if they hold up. Please respect this and keep threads on-topic. There are many other forums where speculation is welcome.

I realize (or 'realise') that I might be a bit late into this discussion, on the segment/aspect that I singled out, from the OP...but:

No....although YES a Boeing 777 (among other airplanes) is capable of 'Auto-Land', it is a procedure that not only involves the airplane's Auto-Pilot(s), ...three, usually... (only TWO on a B-737)...but specific Human interaction IN the cockpit (what we now refer to as the 'Flight Deck'...for gender neutrality** purposes ).

(**)Off-color and OLD misogynistic joke....the 'realm' of pilots was usually (and historically) male-dominated (there were exceptions, of course...but I'm referring to AIRLINE pilots here), but then women began to prove their worthiness as capable pilots too. Some scoffed, and suggested the term "box-office" to replace the term "cockpit". I know, I know.....pilots can be cruel wits.

Getting BACK to my point, in this post: 'Auto-Land' is bandied about by those unfamiliar with the actual procedures that an "Auto-Land" actually entails.

My Two Cents....

Editing on the topic of a suggested 'Auto-land' of MH 370? I will present this video. It depicts an actual B-777, here Air France, conducting a CAT III ('Category III') instrument approach and AutoLand. Please note that the F/O flies....in the beginning. The Captain has the FINAL authority and decision to continue, or to reject (a "Go-Around", or rejected landing). The Captain 'follows' on the controls, and ultimately takes-over after 50 feet. Point I wish to make is....tossing "auto-land" doesn't do justice to the actual skill and procedure and training involved:

They are doing an 'Auto-Land' practice in clear weather....which is often encouraged, as a training thing. At about 2:47 you will hear a male voice in English say "1,000"....this is the GPWS, or "Ground Proximity Warning System" computer. At about 3:35 you hear the GPWS calling out height above terrain. EVERY airline has a different protocol, this happens to be Air Frances' choice...so be it....

This is REAL life....not Hollywood, nor CT-World stuff. BTW? IF you speak French, then you will understand some of the communications. OF COURSE the "rule" in aviation in Air Traffic Control communication is that English is the "primary" language....(try telling that to the French!! LOL). (In German airspace? They all speak English...in Latin America? Mostly Spanish....eh, this is why we have to pay attention, every time!!!).

Click to expand...

I saw this again and although AS they were maneuvering for the Approach to Orly Airport (been there, many times) it seemed that the actual visibility AS REPORTED for that Runway required them to use CAT III procedures. This can happen....a fog can limit visibility for a runway, AT an airport, while the REST of the city is clear!!

I think the best speculation; putting in the wrong waypoint, and the pilots failed to do more than sit, letting the autopilot take them nowhere. I hate putting in data in the aircraft systems, I like to fly using the old method of paying attention; as I put in the wrong credit card number and my bill bounced...

And the article.

Flying along borders, a military navigator told me, is a good way to avoid being spotted on radar.

Click to expand...

Wrong.
Have to agree with Mick. We flew right next to Taipei airspace, and they were watching, and when we touched the border, they launched on us; but at .8 MACH, they are not going to catch us with F-5s, unless they use all their fuel and flameout as they shoot. The boarders are where they are watching. You could fly on the deck, but the fuel will not take you as far.

Clearly, all the evidence points to a hijack by very sophisticated means -

It literally takes a few minutes to find out that yes the airstrip was used for automated landings

Click to expand...

It is ALSO important to point out that ANY runway....or 'airstrip' in the vernacular that YOU used....HAS to have a fully functioning ILS, before ANY airplane has even a hint of a "chance" at Auto-Landing"!!!!

PLEASE click on the link....it leads to Wiki....yeah....BUT? IT is informative. I could also teach you about aviation....but I'd like to charge a fee for my time and effort. Sorry.....been a pilot for (now) over forty years. Over 20,000 hours total time.

Yeah....lemme tell you about a (former) Captain....DC-10, this is "pre"-GPS positioning veryfying....this is OLD SCHOOL INS!

Airplane was in Sydney. "Someone" entered the latitude....but not South....he put in NORTH. The machine senses the Earth's rotation, of course....BUT? IN Sydney the INS units were R&Rd....so, they had no "memory" from previous position info.

Since the three INS units DID NOT KNOW what hemisphere they inialized in......(The Earth rotates the same. Upper or lower hemisphere!!)

They sensed the rotation, and "assumed" they were in Northern Latitudes....THEN, airplane takes off....from Sydney to Hawai'i.

ALL THREE INSs immediately show nonsense....BUT? This Captain continues on....using headings from the computer-generated Flight Plan (which every airline pilot reading this will know and understand),,,,,

THIS story might be "true"? Might be slightly "embellished"....(BUT always funny to relate.....we called him "Magellan".

Like I said....this "might" be just a "story".... but to fellow pilots? We always get a chuckle out of it.

those who had all the logistics to fly to Kazakhstan unnoticed would sure be able to land the plane manually, so all this autopilot discussion is purely for educative purposes(I also learned something along the way)

One HUGE problem with this whole Kazak thing, its at the very limit of MH370's range, so to get there is would have had to go in a straight line. This means the plane would have over flown the air space of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan before reaching Kazakhstan. There is also a chance it would have gone near or over Nepal, China, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Even if the plane did have the range to take a more round about route, Kazakhstan is a land locked nation, it would have had to cross the air spaces of one or more other nations to get there.

Now even though the planes transponder was switched off or knocked out it would still been visible to military radar. (Indeed the Malaysian military tracked the plane for a full hour after the transponder ceased to function) For a start India and Pakistan are not the best of neighbours so any aircraft crossing that frontier only visible to military radar is going to get spotted and investigated by one side or the other. It's also got to cross Afghanistan, a bleeding war zone, entering the country from Pakistan airspace, over a boarder that is still watched to try to stop the Taliban slipping over it.

Also bear in mind that once it appeared something was wrong all the military radars in the area would have been on the alert, just in case it was a 9-11 type scenario. It would have been spotted long before it reach Kazakhstan.

as tagged and named title i expect & welcome Jeff Wise to be along soon to enlighten us on the topic & as for flying over many airspace controlled country's & borders unnoticed,,,, ask the souls of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 1983

Yeah....lemme tell you about a (former) Captain....DC-10, this is "pre"-GPS positioning veryfying....this is OLD SCHOOL INS!

Airplane was in Sydney. "Someone" entered the latitude....but not South....he put in NORTH. The machine senses the Earth's rotation, of course....BUT? IN Sydney the INS units were R&Rd....so, they had no "memory" from previous position info.

Since the three INS units DID NOT KNOW what hemisphere they inialized in......(The Earth rotates the same. Upper or lower hemisphere!!)

They sensed the rotation, and "assumed" they were in Northern Latitudes....THEN, airplane takes off....from Sydney to Hawai'i.

ALL THREE INSs immediately show nonsense....BUT? This Captain continues on....using headings from the computer-generated Flight Plan (which every airline pilot reading this will know and understand),,,,,

THIS story might be "true"? Might be slightly "embellished"....(BUT always funny to relate.....we called him "Magellan".

Like I said....this "might" be just a "story".... but to fellow pilots? We always get a chuckle out of it.

(PS: Flight landed safely at destination....Honolulu).....

Click to expand...

Curious, so where did it initially head for? Antarctica? Tierra del fuego, the long way?

It is ALSO important to point out that ANY runway....or 'airstrip' in the vernacular that YOU used....HAS to have a fully functioning ILS, before ANY airplane has even a hint of a "chance" at Auto-Landing"!!!!

....

Click to expand...

Its been quite a while since I worked on ground based Nav Aids but that what I thought would be needed.

Curious, so where did it initially head for? Antarctica? Tierra del fuego, the long way?

Click to expand...

No....(lol)....once he (they) realized that the INS was giving them "garbage"....they just flew the headings from the Flight Plan....the FP had been computer-generated based on predicted winds aloft. They "faked" the position reports to Air Traffic Control....all the way to Honolulu. Of course, once within roughly 200 miles of the VORs in Hawai'i? They could easily correct navigation-wise.

(Hence....nickname "Magellan")

The ONLY reason this event ever came to attention? A 'whistleblower' (at least, that's the "story" as I have heard it). I DO know it's a true story....the details may have been embellished.....BUT? KNOW that following the computer Flight Plan from Sydney to....oh, I dunno....Honolulu?

KNOW that pilots like to make stories......(**)

Perfectly easy. It's just a matter of using the magnetic compass, really....EVERY airplane has one!! (Just ask Mick West!).

IN FACT? Minor bit of trivia.....what commercial passenger airliner jet has a "rear-view mirror" in the cockpit? Well, the DC-9/MD-80 series....BECAUSE.....the compass (the "Wet compass", as pilots call it) is located BEHIND the pilots....it is printed "backwards" so it can be READ in the mirror, above the instrument panel.

AS I SAID.....EVERY airplane MUST have a compass...a "wet compass" (sometimes called a "floating" compass). USUALLY it's located up front, within the pilot's eye-sight. The DC-9/MD-80 cockpit design presented a challenge....so, McDonnell-Douglas engineers came up with a creative solution. Hence, the mirror and the "backwards" compass....BEHIND the pilots' heads.

Just a little-known tidbit.....

(**)I will leave with this, more recent....USAIR 1549.....A-320 departed LaGuardia, and encountered a HUGE flock of Geese. Now....modern jet engines can take one, even TWO birds.....but BOTH engines of the A-320 ingested MULTIPLE large Geese....and engine failure....BOTH engines were failing.

Long story....Captain Sullenberger (known as "Sully") successfully ditched his airplane into the Hudson River....no loss of life.

REASON I mention this is? Inevitably some wit came up with a "drink" to name after him, Capt. Sully.....

...recall please that his airplane had TWO engines, flew into a flock of Geese and he ditched into a river....

The drink is "TWO SHOTS of Grey Goose.....and a 'splash' of water'.

Now....I did NOT make this up!!! I heard it, and felt it was worth sharing......

EDIT....USAir 1549 full ATC transcript (edited).....NOTE that it is USAirways....which is NOW owned and merged into American Airlines. The "Cactus" call-sign that they use on the radio stems from the fact that an older airline called "America West" had the call-sign "Cactus" for many years.

USAir was bought by "America West"....America West had the ATC (Air Traffic Control) call-sign of "Cactus"...(THIS happened because originally their ATC Call-Sign was "America-West"......AND it caused great confusion in radio communications because of the similarity to "American Airlines". Hence, "America West" was forced to use a different "call-sign"..."Cactus"....THEN they bought USAir....AND the operating protocols OF "America West" were imposed on USAir....so, the "USAIR" radio call-sign was retired....they became "Cactus" for ATC purposes.

I know this is complicated for non-pilots....it's just the way the airline "biz" works......

USAir was bought by "America West"....America West had the ATC (Air Traffic Control) call-sign of "Cactus"...(THIS happened because originally their ATC Call-Sign was "America-West"......AND it caused great confusion in radio communications because of the similarity to "American Airlines". Hence, "America West" was forced to use a different "call-sign"..."Cactus"....THEN they bought USAir....AND the operating protocols OF "America West" were imposed on USAir....so, the "USAIR" radio call-sign was retired....they became "Cactus" for ATC purposes.

I know this is complicated for non-pilots....it's just the way the airline "biz" works......

Click to expand...

AT THIS POINT? The whole "mess" is now owned by American Airlines.....so the "Cactus" call-sign is no more....once a merger in the airline "BIZ" is complete, the acquired companies eventually are "re-trained" to the basic protocols and SOPs, or "Standard Operating Procedures" per the FAA-imposed guidelines and Standards. AFTER that, then all flights change to the "new" ATC radio protocols....because ALL of the pilots have been "re-trained" per the over-all airline's standards.

Sure, makes sense. Recall I worked for Transport Canada as Nav Aids & Comm tech. One picks stuff up from ATC and FSS. Then I worked for a public broadcaster and had to charter small float planes to service remote transmitters. Hours in flight conversing with pilots and again one picks things up. ( well not a lot of talking in flight on DHC2 or DHC3 piston but there was preflight and, all too often, weather delays.)

No evidence suggests that it was hijacked: No-one has made any demands, no-one knows where it is.

Click to expand...

The behavior of the plane from 1:07 to 2:37 indicates human intervention in the flight plan. Suggests, implies, makes possible...quibble over semantics. It is possible, based on the evidence we know of, that the plane was hijacked.

Apart from the many issues you guys already brought up with Jeff Wise' theory (that MH370 landed at Baikonur Cosmodrome), it appears to suffer from one other major issue :
A flight towards the north does not match the doppler shift of the Inmarsat handshake pings :

It uses the Inmarsat handshake data, and ONLY assumes constant heading and speed after the Panang turn.
It results in a projected crash position on the south side of the arc that is being searched,
slightly north of the center arc.

If you guys think this theory benefits from some discussion, we can start a new thread for it.

A year after the disappearance of a Malaysia Airlines plane with 239 on board, investigators still don't know what happened. Could pilot suicide have been the cause?

"Someone was looking at Penang. Someone was taking a long, emotional look at Penang. The captain was from the island of Penang."

There are times when Captain Simon Hardy's analysis of flight MH370 sends shivers down the spine. An experienced Boeing 777 captain, he knows the Asian air routes like a commuter knows short cuts home. He flew them them for 17 years.

He's convinced about something that no pilot, no passenger, nobody in fact wants to think is possible - that the captain of the flight, Zaharie Shah, deliberately hid the plane from radar and flew it thousands of miles off course, before it came down in the ocean.

He says the clues are in the route it took after it vanished from air traffic control. It turned back on itself and flew along the border of Malaysia and Thailand.

"It flew in and out of the countries eight times," he says. "This is probably very accurate flying rather than just a coincidence. As both air traffic controllers in both those countries would probably assume that the aircraft was in the other country's jurisdiction and not pay it any attention."

But his most eerie theory comes a little later, as the aircraft skirts around the captain's home island, Penang,

"It does a strange hook," he says. "I spent a long time thinking about this and eventually I found that it was a similar manoeuvre to what I'd done in Australia over Ayers Rock. Because the airway goes directly over Ayers Rock you don't actually see it very well because it disappears under the nose of the aircraft.

"So in order to look at it you have to turn left or right, get alongside it and then execute a long turn. If you look at the output from Malaysian 370, there were actually three turns not one. Someone was looking at Penang."

"Someone was looking at Penang. Someone was taking a long, emotional look at Penang. The captain was from the island of Penang."

this is assumption, it's not confirmed if there was a significant change in altitude and even if there was - "Someone was taking a long, emotional look at Penang." is pure sensationalism

"It flew in and out of the countries eight times,"

this is also assumption, it's more probable that he flew along thai border but inside malaysian territory because thai ATC would very probably interrogate the aircraft if it strayed into their airspace, he didn't have any reason to cut the border 8 times because it would just increase chances of interrogating/interception, so it's silly theory

"If you look at the output from Malaysian 370, there were actually three turns not one. "

What three turns is he talking about? I can't see any of that on the radar trace provided.

@Stevan Gvozdenovic
I am neither the proponent of a pilot suicide theory, nor very interested in the speculations about possible causes of MH370 disappearance. My post above was just to point out that such a serious news outlet like BBC could not resist the temptation to present that particular theory.

The pilot suicide theory just doesn't sit right with me either. Why bother taking the plane to altitude? And if he's acting strangely wouldn't his offsider get a bit suspicious about what was going on? Admittedly I'm not a pilot (never had the grades...not that I'm bitter...) however it would seem odd that the copilot would just sit idly by and let the captain pull some dumb moves "hey I've always wanted to try a barrel roll in one of these things..." without even so much as an emergency call.

There is nothing about a hijack theory by Russia/Mossad/Reptilians et al that particularly makes a good case either. Unless someone wanted to try a repeat 9/11 style incident. But even then, surely some jihadist or assorted crazies would have stuck their hands up to claim it?

however it would seem odd that the copilot would just sit idly by and let the captain pull some dumb moves

Click to expand...

Presumably the other pilot would have to have been either incapacitated or locked out of the cockpit for this (speculated) plan to succeed. Similar to what is postulated to have happened in the crash of SilkAir 185.

Presumably the other pilot would have to have been either incapacitated or locked out of the cockpit for this (speculated) plan to succeed. Similar to what is postulated to have happened in the crash of SilkAir 185.

Click to expand...

"sharpnfuzzy" makes a good speculative point in response to "occams rusty scissor" (post #70).

I realize it has been roughly one year so far in this mystery. AND that it is sometimes just noise when speculating...but, certain factors indicate human interaction with the AutoPilot and FMS (Flight Management System) based on some of the down-linked data, that is automated on that sort of modern airliner.

Has anyone any knowledge of either Pilots' life insurance details? Has this been brought up as yet, as a possible motive for a "fake" suicide?
(I ask because in most instances life insurance policies will NOT pay out on a confirmed suicide). Perhaps this is an avenue to explore?

Following on with this (albeit) speculation: IF one of the two pilots exits the Flight deck (usually for biological reasons, such as to go to the lavatory) on the modern airliners the lone pilot on the Flight Deck can certainly, if so inclined, lock the door to prevent entry. EVEN when a crewmember knows the entry code, there is a 'Hard-Lock' feature. For security reasons, I will spare some details. But, those in the airline biz know this.

The lone Pilot has complete control...(I fear that my speculation may fall-apart here...I was about to suggest that this lone pilot could raise the cabin altitude to induce hypoxia, whilst having many hours' of O2 available to him. But, this fact wasn't down-linked by the automatic monitoring systems via ACARS, as far as I know). Still, being barricaded being a secure Flight Deck door? This would be a heinous, selfish and in-human act of course.

Has anyone any knowledge of either Pilots' life insurance details? Has this been brought up as yet, as a possible motive for a "fake" suicide?
(I ask because in most instances life insurance policies will NOT pay out on a confirmed suicide). Perhaps this is an avenue to explore?

Click to expand...

Not according to this...

"Some have floated the idea that the pilot might have decided to commit suicide or deliberately crash the plane as part
of a complex insurance scam. But the report said, 'there is no record of him having secured a life insurance policy.'"

Following on with this (albeit) speculation: IF one of the two pilots exits the Flight deck (usually for biological reasons, such as to go to the lavatory) on the modern airliners the lone pilot on the Flight Deck can certainly, if so inclined, lock the door to prevent entry. EVEN when a crewmember knows the entry code, there is a 'Hard-Lock' feature. For security reasons, I will spare some details. But, those in the airline biz know this.

Click to expand...

So in this instance (and without wanting to cause opsec issues) would there be any way for flight crew to raise an alarm to ATC? Are there any auxiliary comms outside of the flight deck for a scenario where hijackers lock flight crew out?
I just find it strange that there was no alarm, no mayday call etc. but again I'm just working off very little knowledge of what goes on in the flight deck.

I saw that story about the napkin being found and wondered if they'll be able to determine its origin. From what I saw it is a generic refresher towelette, but maybe there's a batch number they can match.

however it would seem odd that the copilot would just sit idly by and let the captain pull some dumb moves "hey I've always wanted to try a barrel roll in one of these things..." .

Click to expand...

The only incident I know of where anything like that happened was the case of Pinnacle 3701. Where the crew on a ferry flight (no passengers or cargo) decided to see if they could get their Bombardier CRJ-200 to its service ceiling of 41,000ft with catastrophic results. The aircrew received a Darwin Award for that stunt.http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2004-11.html

Before we resort to more speculation, I'd like to double-check a few more facts :

Although the transponder of MH370 was switched off very quickly (over the China sea, and the first indication that something was not right) one thing that baffles me is this Inmarsat communication, which decidedly remained ON down to the very end.

Maybe the experienced pilots on this forum could comment : what does a pilot have to do to switch off Inmarsat communication ? Is there a switch on flight deck of a 777 ?
Or do you have to leave the cabin to switch off that system ?

Before we resort to more speculation, I'd like to double-check a few more facts :

Although the transponder of MH370 was switched off very quickly (over the China sea, and the first indication that something was not right) one thing that baffles me is this Inmarsat communication, which decidedly remained ON down to the very end.

Maybe the experienced pilots on this forum could comment : what does a pilot have to do to switch off Inmarsat communication ? Is there a switch on flight deck of a 777 ?
Or do you have to leave the cabin to switch off that system ?

Click to expand...

Most pilots would not have known about this aspect of the Satcom system before this incident . I certainly didn't.

Switching it off would probably require shutting down the AC bus it operates from. That is a major change to the system.

Otherwise you'd have to get below the flight deck, into the electronics compartment and know where to find the box.

As far as access to Satcom is concerned, the head Flight Attendant on our aircraft can make calls from the main cabin if required. It would've interesting to know if MAS is the same.

well it is possible that he didn't know that too, but I suppose if he really wanted to hide the aircraft forever he would inform himself much better (Satcom isn't military secret and the info is publically available) which leads me to the conclusion that he had some airport as his planned destination and wanted the aircraft to be invisible (for civilian ATC) only temporarily...

well it is possible that he didn't know that too, but I suppose if he really wanted to hide the aircraft forever he would inform himself much better (Satcom isn't military secret and the info is publically available) which leads me to the conclusion that he had some airport as his planned destination and wanted the aircraft to be invisible (for civilian ATC) only temporarily...

Click to expand...

Can you explain that a bit more please? I'm not really following the logic.

Assuming you're talking about a deliberate act by the pilot or pilots, why would they be less likely to bone up on this other system if they wanted to land at some airport and disappear than they would if, say, they planned to crash it into the sea?

Or are you conjecturing that the plan was to land the plane somewhere it would subsequently be discovered, but something else went wrong before it could?